ATTACHMENT A H.R. 10294 (1) The bill is heavily oriented toward encouraging state and local governments to plan and to develop land use controls to protect the natural environment. Without a strong housing element there is insufficient emphasis on the need to plan for the enhancement of the living environment, including the land needs for housing and related community facilities. (2) The Federal procedure for reviewing state land use planning processes in order to determine eligibility for grants is overly complex and involves review and consideration by a multitude of Federal departments and agencies, some of which have divergent and nearly irreconcilable goals and interests. Likewise the necessity for states filing and refiling countless reports, forms, applications and the taking of other actions to comply with government "red tape" would likely prove cumbersome. (3) Federal level coordination of activities dealing with land use will be difficult, NEPA, the Coastal Zone Management Act, water and sewer programs of various Federal agencies, highway assistance, strip mining regulations, power plant siting, water conservaiton programs and energy resource programs often have such differing objectives that "coordination" could in effect mean a complete cessation of these and many other vitally needed Federal programs. (4) Many of the definitions in the bill are so vague that they could be given nearly whatever meaning Federal or State governments choose. In other cases general terms are employed and no meaning for them can be found in the bill. For instance, what is the meaning of "major" federal actions affecting land use or public involvement that is "meaningful"? What is an action "significantly" affecting land use? What is the size and scope of developments of regional impact? What is an "area of environmental concern"-to whom? (5) Citizen participation in the planning process and the implementation of this process is heavily emphasized. Yet, there are no reasonable bounds within which citizens may become involved in the process. There is nothing to prevent people with no real legitimate interest in the planning process to thwart, for example, efforts to construct a highway or a well planed PUD. (6) In delineating areas of critical environmental concern, there is no reasonable limit over what may be reserved and the criteria for establishing such areas is so broad that there is nothing to prohibit a state from going to unreasonable excesses in designating land as being critical and thereby inhibiting growth altogether. (7) The potential exists for state regulation of nearly all residential development-large and small alike. The bill establishes no minimum limits as to the size of projects that may be covered by state land use laws. The bill is not clear in defining that land use decisions should be made at the lowest governmental level which will produce rational and coordinated land use. In most cases this is the local level. (8) Administration of the grant-in-aid program is under the Department of the Interior, an agency of government oriented toward the vast, sparsely settled areas of the West, Indian affairs, parks and campgrounds. HUD, which administers the 701 planning program as well as housing and community facility programs, has an orientation and expertise for dealing with a broad spectrum of land use problems. Failure to designate HUD as the administering agency reemphasizes the environmentally oriented nature of this legislation. Failure to give appropriate consideration to the people issues stresses the onesided environmentally oriented nature of the proposal. (9) The bill provides no assurances that private landowners will be compensated if their land is reserved from development because it is determined to be of "critical environmental concern." (10) The bill provides vague criteria for designating critical areas but establishes no process for periodic review of such areas, as conditions, land use techniques, construction technology and peoples' needs and desires change. 57-493 O 76 pt. 2 12 (11) No provision is made to "grandfather in" land development underway at the time any new planning process is implemented. Thus, a builder who has proceeded in good faith under one set of rules could suddenly find the rules changed and find he has no vested rights. (12) The bill fails to provide for a public hearings procedure before land areas are determined to be of critical concern. Senator HANSEN. Mr. John W. Humke, vice president of Government programs, accompanied by Emily Schway of the Nature Conservancy, are our next witnesses. I want to welcome you, Mr. Humke, and you, Ms. Schwab, for your appearance here today. Your entire statement will be included in the record as though read. I must say I am in the embarrassing situation of having a commitment before too long this afternoon, and if you would be kind enough to summarize and focus on the points you think most important, I would be most appreciative. Mr. HUMKE. Senator, thank you. Would 5 minutes be too long? Senator HANSEN. No, indeed. STATEMENT OF JOHN W. HUMKE, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, ACCOMPANIED BY EMILY SCHWAB, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY Mr. HUMKE. My name is John Humke. I am vice president of Government programs for the Nature Conservancy, as I am sure you know, our organization over the past 25 years has been responsible for the over 750,000 acres of marshes, beaches, and prairies throughout the United States. We recognize the need for the Government to rationally utilize and protect its land resources. We therefore support Senate bill 984. However, with this support we also wish to share with this committee our concern; in fact, our conviction that is presently written at least one very central element of land use will be lost. I am speaking about retaining critical ecological values in the landscape. As members of our staff read and discussed this legislation, we recognized that this was not the intention of the draft and, in fact, the subject is addressed in the bill; however, our experience indicates, without few additional changes, which we have suggested, this essential activity will almost certainly be lost in the implementation of the act. The significant values of concern here, which we term values of natural economic diversity, are discussed in depth in our written statement. I will only touch upon them briefly at this time. Every living species has a purpose and a role to play, every species is unique and impacts upon other species in some way that has a bearing upon the total ecosystem and ultimately the integrity of total life support systems, each species-the fungus that landed in Dr. Fleming's laboratory and resulted in penicillin. As we continue to homogenize our landscape and reduce ecological diversity, the problem increases; the list of obligations of biological resources to human needs is only exceeded by the list of potential benefits yet to be discovered. With this in mind, it would seem obvious the retention of biological diversity in this country and in the world should be of foremost concern to mankind. Unfortunately, this has not yet become the case. For the past 2 years, I and others on the staff have attended many land use conferences. We have read literature on the subject and most significantly, we have worked closely with planners at the State level through our State national heritage program. We have discovered land use planners and the individuals that will administer and implement this act are not oriented toward concepts of ecological diversity. In fact, they are frequently not oriented toward ecological phenomenon generally. Therefore, we cannot-the bill needs to be more specific. Another problem is planners will encounter the paucity of meaningful ecological data presently available. Under the constraints of limited dollars and restricted time of this important endeavor, there will be a natural tendency to produce land use plans based primarily on land use data, whatever it may be. Unlike resources, such as soils, water, crops, and even recreational sites, there has never been in this country systematic ecological survey-the techniques are available. In fact, we have at the Nature Conservancy a special task force that works full time in this area. What is needed is the funding and most important, the direction, and Senate bill 984 and its companion in the House has the potential to provide this direction in a way that is most compatible with other essential land use concerns. If it is not done in this bill, I cannot imagine when or where it will be done. The amendments we are recommending are very few but very specific. They do not, in our view, really add any new concepts to the bill nor do they dilute the principles of State and local participation. They will assure land use development is recognized and treated and we strongly urge and ask the committee to review and evaluate the suggestions. Thank you. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Humke. Let me say, I know a little bit about your organization. I am one of the great number of Americans who respects its goals and objectives very much. I happen to know the Wyoming director, Vince Lee, out in my hometown in western Wyoming, and I have great admiration for him. I am aware, too, of the instances where Nature Conservancy has gone in and has purchased land later to be sold to an appropriate Government agency, oftentimes, and by its ability to move quickly, has prevented what most of us might agree otherwise would have been an unfortunate result. I want to compliment you for that. I want to say, I will read every bit of your testimony and I appreciate your being here and I think I would not be presumptuous to add that probably other members of this committee might, when given an opportunity to read your testimony, like to submit questions to you in writing— did you have anything to add, Ms. Schwab. Ms. SCHWAB. I just wanted to say it seems to us that it makes a lot of sense in determining how we are going to plan the landscape to look out there and see what is there first of all, to take some time— and it would probably would not take very long-to inventory the natural characteristics of the landscape, although Leopold has said, the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces. Considering the values and all of the ramifications of the species and other natural characteristics of our planet Earth, I think it is something that this committee might well look into. Thank you. Senator HANSEN. If I might add a personal note, last year, I happened to speak to one of Mr. Rockefeller's groups meeting in Jackson Hole. The Jackson Hole Preserve in western Wyoming and I pointed out the changes I thought were taking place out there within the valley and observed the time was fast approaching, in my judgment, when a number of ranches out there would probably be changing operations. That came about, I felt, because of several factorsone, the cattle market was in a very depressed situation, which it continues to be in; two, the physical problem of trying to move cattle from home ranches where they are fed throughout the winter to summer ranges is more difficult each year; and third, these two factors coupled with others, I think, was making a number of landowners conclude there would have to be a better place to continue that type of agricultural operation than in Jackson Hole due to the changing situation. I had suggested it, it might be in the national interest to appoint a blue ribbon commission to look at the boundaries of the park and after having studied them, make some recommendations, if any, as they might care to make for appropriate legislation. I have just learned a couple days ago, the Secretary of Interior and other officials in the Interior Department, including the Director of the National Park Service, have approached the problem differently. They will call in a number of Federal advisory groups including the Nature Conservancy, so I am told, to look at the overall problem there and to make recommendations to the National Parks Advisory Commission and hopefully to have a report sometime later this fall. I know with people like Vince Lee your philosophy will be very ably presented. Mr. HUMKE. We are looking forward to that opportunity. We have had a great interest in the Teton Valley and we are looking forward to the opportunity to be more effective there. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much for coming. [The prepared statement of Mr. Humke follows:] The Nature Conservancy 1800 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 524-3151 STATEMENT ON S. 984 THE LAND RESOURCES PLANNING ASSISTANCE ACT Delivered Before the Subcommittee on Environment and Land Resources By John W. Humke Vice President, Government Programs May 2, 1975 |